I find this whole "200 animals" thing to frankly be arbitrary and stupid. While I can certainly agree with the notion that it can sometimes be in the best interest of a zoo to downsize its collection, picking a number of species to reach really doesn't seem like a wise idea given that all species have drastically different needs. For example, one of these 200 spaces is likely to go to the Western lowland gorilla, which requires a lot of space, a large daily time commitment from keepers, an expensive diet, and is an overall large use of resources for a zoo to house. Another one of the 200 spaces, however, may go to the green tree python, which can be comfortably housed in a reasonably small terrarium, probably takes about half an hour of total keeper time a day, and only eats one rodent a week. To say that these two species both take up an equivalent "space" in the zoo's overall collection is completely ridiculous, when the resources each species actually used could not be more different.
While I may not see completely eye-to-eye on the idea that Toronto Zoo should downsize its collection, I can certainly see a solid rationale behind it and can think of some easy places where losing species could be in the zoo's best interest. It's the whole idea of picking an arbitrary number to aim for that bugs me.